Thursday, 31 July 2014

We tell the previous information, that are being planted nuclear bombs throughout the United States, but in this article, information about the explosives planted in Yellowstone around it may be found. It is said that speaking of Yellowstone district, is a volcanic region of North America's largest, in the near future, that there is a possibility that catastrophic eruption occurs at the huge caldera. If the eruption occurred, if I can affect the world as well as America.
And,'s in this catastrophe awaited eruption is the trick people of NWO. By the U.S. military and the U.S. government to cooperate, to explode the Yellowstone neighborhood and am trying to induce a catastrophic eruption. There is also information Russia and attacked the area in HAARP in 2006. If these pieces of information if true, Russian troops are stationed in secret back to the United States from a few years ago, are doing a joint exercise with the U.S. military, to realize the NWO and martial law in the United States that's because you know. Thing of this street is if you are actually carried out, that the Western has come so far is a OWO, the Obama administration of communism and China, Russia and take the initiative of BRICS, in conspiracy, of OWO Now destroy the United States and Europe of the ruler, what are you trying to achieve in the United States of their NWO, Illuminati, but I have been working behind the scenes of course. . . .
It may be that trying to blast the super volcano in Yellowstone Obama administration and Russia played a central role and this happens. I do not see this information may or may not true. . . Their plan will not be done by such information is diffused in the world and the United States. Anyway, now, Yellowstone is whether to watch. . . .
http://www.americanholocaustcoming.blogspot.jp/
(Overview)
Explosive destructive was planted at the hands of U.S. forces in Yellowstone near: dated 10 May.

Deleted BBC Report. “Ukrainian Fighter Jet Shot Down MHI7″, Donetsk Eyewitnesses
The Catastrophe of #MH17: #BBC in the Search of the "#BUK" - The Video Report Deleted by @BBC
What-the-media-won’t-report-about-Malaysia-Airlines-Flight-MH17
source
By Global Research News
Global Research, July 27, 2014
slavyangrad.wordpress.com
The original BBC Video Report was published by BBC Russian Service on July 23, 2014.
In a bitter irony, The BBC is censoring its own news productions.
Why did BBC delete this report by Olga Ivshina?
Is it because the BBC team was unable to find any evidence that a rocket was launched in the area that the Ukrainian Security Service (“SBU”) alleges to be the place from which the Novorossiya Militia launched a “BUK” missile?
Or is it because every eyewitness interviewed by the BBC team specifically indicated the presence of a Ukrainian military aircraft right beside the Malaysian Airlines Boeing MH17 at the time that it was shot down?
Or is it because of eyewitness accounts confirming that the Ukrainian air force regularly used civilian aircraft flying over Novorossiya as human shields to protect its military aircraft conducting strikes against the civilian population from the Militia’s anti-aircraft units?
Highlights of Witness statements (see complete transcript below)
Eyewitness #1: There were two explosions in the air. And this is how it broke apart. And [the fragments] blew apart like this, to the sides. And when …
Eyewitness #2: … And there was another aircraft, a military one, beside it. Everybody saw it.
Eyewitness #1: Yes, yes. It was flying under it, because it could be seen. It was proceeding underneath, below the civilian one.
Eyewitness #3: There were sounds of an explosion. But they were in the sky. They came from the sky. Then this plane made a sharp turn-around like this. It changed its trajectory and headed in that direction [indicating the direction with her hands].
Video: The Catastrophe of #MH17: #BBC in the Search of the “#BUK"

Introductory Paragraphs to the BBC Video Report

by slavyangrad.wordpress.com
Intro of BBC Report (For Full Transcript see below)
The “black boxes” of the crashed Malaysian Boeing have finally been transferred into the hands of the experts. However, how much can they tell us?
The recorders logged the coordinates and the heading of the aircraft at the time of the incident and may have recorded the sound of the explosion. However, they will not tell us what exactly caused the explosion.
The inhabitants of the nearby villages are certain that they saw military aircraft in the sky shortly prior to the catastrophe. According to them, it actually was the jet fighters that brought down the Boeing.
The Ukrainian government rejects this version of events. They believe that the Boeing was shot down using a missile from a “BUK” complex that came in from Russia.
The Ukrainian Security Service has published photographs and a video, which, in its opinion, prove that the Boeing was shot down with a “BUK” missile.
BBC reporter Olga Ivshina and producer Oksana Vozhdayeva decided to find the place from which the missile was allegedly launched.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zUvK5m2vxro

DPR Representative: Here it is.
Olga Ivshina, BBC: The black boxes from the crashed Boeing are finally being transferred into the hands of the experts. However, how much can they tell us?
The recorders logged the coordinates and the heading of the aircraft at the time of the incident and may have recorded the sound of the explosion. However, they will not tell us what exactly caused the explosion.
The inhabitants of the nearby villages are certain that they saw military aircraft in the sky shortly prior to the catastrophe. According to them, it actually was the jet fighters that brought down the Boeing.
Eyewitness #1: There were two explosions in the air. And this is how it broke apart. And [the fragments] blew apart like this, to the sides. And when …
Eyewitness #2: … And there was another aircraft, a military one, beside it. Everybody saw it.
Eyewitness #1: Yes, yes. It was flying under it, because it could be seen. It was proceeding underneath, below the civilian one.
Eyewitness #3: There were sounds of an explosion. But they were in the sky. They came from the sky. Then this plane made a sharp turn-around like this. It changed its trajectory and headed in that direction [indicating the direction with her hands].
Olga Ivshina, BBC: The Ukrainian government rejects this version of events. They believe that the Boeing was shot down using a missile from a “BUK” complex that came in from the direction of Russia.
Vitaliy Naida, Department of Counterintelligence of SBU [Ukrainian Security Service]: This was a BUK M1 system from which the aircraft was shot down. It came to Ukraine early in the morning on the 17th of July. It was delivered by a tow truck to the city of Donetsk. After that, it was redeployed from Donetsk, as part of a column of military equipment, to the area of the city of Torez, to the area of Snezhnoye, to the area of Pervomaisk.
Olga Ivshina, BBC: The Ukrainian Security Service has published photographs and a video, which, in its opinion, prove that the Boeing was shot down with a “BUK” missile. We attempted to verify these photographs and information at the location.
One of the photographs showed a landscape not far from the city of Torez, on which smoke could be seen coming from the presumed location of the missile’s launch. We attempted to find this location, and it appears that we were successful.
We are now on the outskirts of the city of Torez. Behind me, approximately five kilometres away, is the city of Snezhnoye. And the landscape here matches the landscape that we can see on the photograph published by the Ukrainian Security Service.
To find the place from which the smoke was allegedly coming from, we adopted as markers these three poplars and the group of trees. Presumably, this is the place that can be seen on the photograph published by the SBU. And here are our markers: the three solitary poplars and the small group of trees in the distance.
The smoke that can be seen on the photograph came from somewhere over there [pointing behind her], behind my back. The SBU believes that this is a trace coming from the launch of a “BUK” missile.
However, it must be noted that there are here, approximately in the same place, the Saur-Mogila memorial, near which the fighting continues almost unabated, and a coalmine. It turns out that the smoke with the same degree of probability could have been coming from any of these locations.
Having circled around the nearby fields, we were unable to find any traces of a missile launch. Nor did the local inhabitants that we encountered see any “BUK” either.
At the ruins of an apartment building in the city of Snezhnoye, the topic of the jet fighters that may have been escorting civilian aircraft comes up again. A bomb dropped from above took away the lives of eleven civilians here.
Sergey Godovanets, Commander of the Militia of the city of Snezhnoye: They use these civilian aircraft to hide behind them. It is only now that they stopped flying over us – but, usually, civilian aircraft would always fly above us. And they hide [behind them]. [The experience in] Slavyansk had demonstrated that they would fly out from behind a civilian aircraft, bomb away, and then hide, once again, behind the civilian aircraft and fly away.
Olga Ivshina, BBC: The commander of the local militia emphasizes that they have no weaponry capable of shooting down a jet fighter [flying] at a significant height. However, he says that if such weaponry were to appear, they would have tried to.
Sergey Godovanets: If we know that it is not a civilian aircraft, but a military one, then – yes.
Olga Ivshina, BBC: So, could the Boeing have been shot down by the militias that had mistaken it for a military aircraft? There is as yet no unequivocal confirmation of either this or any other version [of what took place]. The international experts are just beginning their work with the information obtained from the crashed airliner. It now appears that it is difficult to overstate the importance of this investigation. Olga Ivshina, BBC.
The Catastrophe of #MH17:
#BBC in the Search of the “BUK” – The Video Report Deleted by BBC
Translation by: Valentina Lisitsa
http://slavyangrad.wordpress.com
http://www.globalresearch.ca/deleted-bbc-report-ukrainian-fighter-jet-shot-down-mhi7-donetsk-eyewitnesses/5393631

LOOOSERS mindset; and get up to speed on the mechanism of your UN-ENSLAVEMENT solution!

"Afloating chargeis asecurity interestover a fund of changing assets of acompanyor alimited liability partnership(LLP), which 'floats' or 'hovers' until the point at which it is converted into afixed charge, at which point the charge attaches to specific assets of the company or LLP. This conversion into a fixed charge (called "crystallisation") can be triggered by a number of events;inter alia, it has become an implied term (under English law) in debentures that a cessation of the company's right to deal with the assets in the ordinary course of business leads to automatic crystallisation. Additionally, according to express terms of a typical loan agreement, default by the chargor is a trigger for crystallisation. Such defaults typically include non-payment, invalidity of any of the lending or security documents or the launch ofinsolvency proceedings.

Floating charges take effect in equity only, and consequently are defeated by a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of any asset covered by them. In practice, as the chargor has power to dispose of assets subject to a floating charge, this is only of consequence in relation to disposals that occur after the charge has crystallised.

The floating charge has been described as "one of equity's most brilliant creations."[3]

Although the nature of a floating charge has been widely considered by the courts, historically no full definition has ever been given, and the nature of the chargee's interest in the charged assets (or fund of assets) remains doctrinally uncertain. The earliest descriptions were given by Lord Macnaghten in two cases.

"A floating security is an equitable charge on the assets for the time being of a going concern. It attaches to the subject charged in the varying condition in which it happens to be from time to time. It is the essence of such a charge that it remains dormant until the undertaking ceases to be a going concern, or until the person in whose favour the charge is created intervenes. His right to intervene may of course be suspended by agreement. But if there is no agreement for suspension, he may exercise his right whenever he pleases after default."

"...a floating is ambulatory and shifting in nature, hovering over and so to speak floating with the property which it is intended to affect until some event occurs or some act is done which causes it to settle and fasten on the subject of the charge within its reach and grasp."

A description was subsequently given in Re Yorkshire Woolcombers Association [1903] 2 Ch 284, and despite Romer LJ clearly stating in that case that he did not intend to give a definition of the term floating charge, his description is generally cited as the most authoritative definition of what a floating charge is:

it is a charge over a class of assets present and future;

that class will be changing from time to time; and

until the charge crystallises and attaches to the assets, the chargor may carry on its business in the ordinary way.

"the asset subject to the charge is not finally appropriated as a security for the payment of the debt until the occurrence of some future event. In the meantime the chargor is left free to use the charged asset and to remove it from the security."

Because of the lower priority of a floating charge (see below), most security documents that create floating charges also seek to create fixed charges over as many assets of the company as they reasonably can. In relation to certain assets, this has historically given rise to tension as to whether the charge created is actually a fixed charge, or whether (despite being expressed as a fixed charge) it should be recharacterised as a floating charge, with the lower priority that floating charges have. This issue arises most frequently in relation to trade receivables and cash in bank accounts.

In National Westminster bank plc v Spectrum Plus Limited and others [2005] UKHL 41 the House of Lords finally brought some clarity to this area of the law. The essential test of whether a charge was a fixed charge related to the chargor's power to continue to deal with the asset. In order to preserve the status of a charge as a fixed one, the bank must exercise actual control over disposal of the asset. If the chargor is able to deal with the asset, such as by drawing from the account in which charged funds are kept, or into which the proceeds of trade receivables are deposited, then the holder of the charge does not have effective control. The judges held that as this is inconsistent with the status of the charge as fixed (if the chargor company is able to use the proceeds in the ordinary course of its business without the consent of the charge holder), the charge could only take effect as a floating charge.

Several authors[4] have suggested that the floating chargee, prior to crystallisation, may have no proprietary interest at all in the charged assets. However, this is inconsistent with cases (such as Spectrum) at the highest level which suggest a proprietary interest does exist.

Alternatively, the floating chargee may have an inchoate type of proprietary interest, with characteristics that are proprietary but of a lesser order than the proprietary interest of a chargee with a fixed charge. Some authors have suggested that there is an interest in a fund of assets,[5] but the nature and incidents of the interest remain unclear. This has received some judicial support, from Lord Walker in Spectrum, for example.

Another possibility is that the holder of a floating charge may have the same quality of proprietary interest as a fixed chargee, but one that is subject to defeasance[6] or overreaching[7] by permitted dealings by the chargor with the charged assets." Continues.

A conversation with Kai Holloway; co-founder of #CrowdActivism #PeaceOfficers (crowdactivism.com which we also publish); about how Open-Transactions, is just about to DEMOLISH the BANKSTERS your place, specifically: reads bottom to top (and no time to cut out the tweets in between, so SCAN!)